The absurdity of equality shows its ugly head again—deaf woman on a jury?

Years ago at the outset of feminism—as I mentioned in a related blog a couple of days ago—I heard a radio advertisement that said “hire a woman—they can do everything” and I thought to myself ‘That’s a lie; they can’t do everything.’ The most obvious red flag about the advertisement was this: if women could do everything, why did they need to advertise? The notion that women can do everything must be one of the most offensive lies that has ever been forced on the west. For a start, women can’t piss standing up, nor can they lift, reach for things, or run as well as men; if women were equal to men, there wouldn’t be women’s events at the Olympics, would there?

Obviously women can do most things but they can't do things that require strength and size, and therefore they simply can’t be classified as being equal to men just like men can’t be classified as being equal to women; men can’t breastfeed very well, can they? There are certain things men can do better than women and vice versa, and it’s time for the west to gets it head around that fact.

And therein lies the problem with this so-called equality; the west appears unable to get its head around it, so much so it is now causing safety issues and in some cases putting lives in danger. For example, we never had policewomen before and policemen had to be over six feet tall but no longer; they can be any height now and any age for that matter—which has completely weakened our police force; the same can be said for the fire department and other rescue organisations. Putting women in combat roles within the military is another absurdity; just imagine being a strong, fast male soldier and you’re are forced to partner with a much weaker and slower female soldier; how dangerous that would be?

To illustrate my point regarding how equality has proven very dangerous—in fact fatal—I will use the 2005 Atlanta court massacre as an example. They had a 5’6” tall female officer guarding a 6’1” dangerous, burly, black prisoner. The prisoner easily over powered the female guard, took her gun and shot and wounded her and then went on to kill the judge and two others. All of these deaths would have been prevented if they had hired a big man; someone with the strength to defend himself.

The dangers of equality don’t just pertain to male and female, they pertain to every situation where we apply equality or the fear of discrimination in employment situations instead of applying rational common-sense. This could be race-neutral, religion-neutral or any other form of employment based on neutrality or political correctness. The Fort Hood shooting could have been avoided for the very same reason; applying politically-correct equality ahead of logical reasoning.

The following case in Australia where a deaf woman has claimed discrimination for not being permitted jury duty may not be as dangerous as the above examples but it is damaging none-the-less. Without question, we know a deaf woman even with an interpreter cannot pick up all the nuances that a person with fully-functioning senses can; a blind person would be equally ineffective for the very same reason.

As it turns out, the court made the right decision by excusing her from jury duty. Can you image being charged with murder, for example, and you were convicted based on a deaf person’s interpretation of the evidence? It would be ludicrous and would make the judicial system a complete farce. But the sad reality is this: it is inevitable—based on the irrational push for total equality—that we will someday have blind and deaf people on juries—and all this madness started with feminists propagandising the notion ‘women can do everything.’

Read the Courier Mail article:

Deaf woman Gaye Lyons claims discrimination when unwillingly excused from jury duty

A DEAF woman claims she was subjected to unlawful discrimination when she was unwillingly excused from jury duty because of her hearing disability.

Gaye Prudence Lyons has made a complaint against the Queensland Government under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 for failing to provide an interpreter during her stint as member of an Ipswich jury panel.
Details of the action were revealed in a recent Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision to consider Ms Lyons' request for an order forcing the Deputy Registrar and Sheriff of the Ipswich District Court to supply a range of documents.
QCAT senior member Clare Endicott, in a recently published four page ruling, dismissed Mr Lyons' application for the tribunal to issue a notice of production, but does give a small insight into the hearing impaired woman's complaint. Read more